Not a fan - Jacob Clabo

on
So, ironically enough, I felt as if I understood more of Descartes than Locke. However, what I did understand of Locke is that his message on human understanding was almost a complete discredit of Plato, and a contrast of Descartes. While Descartes went into a quiet room and secluded himself to gain knowledge of his own understanding, Locke says that most knowledge gained is through experience or "sensation." If it is not through the sensation or experience itself one gains knowledge, then Locke says that it is through the "reflection" of the information gained through the previous ways mentioned. His ideas also completely discredit the beliefs and concepts of Plato's reincarnation of the soul and recollection because Locke states that knowledge and information can only be gained in the present life. He almost completely goes against the ideas of innate truths because he believes that one will only learn and accept things through the processes of sensation and reflection instead of being able to think and come upon certain truths. One has to either stumble across or search for truths instead of them being ingrained into people.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with this because I believe that, no matter what the situation or predicament, one can obtain common or humane truths without having to do much searching. Did anyone else seem to think that Locke was going against the grain a little too roughly when he stated the ideas in this passage?

P.S. I posted on Mackenzie Jackson's and Hailey Morgan's Post.

Comments

Moriah Nelson said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
September 23, 2019 at 2:56 PM
Moriah Nelson said…
I definitely understood more of Descartes’ writing than Locke’s. Your post is an awesome evaluation of Locke’s writing and I appreciate that. I didn’t even think about the seclusion revelations vs. sensation revelations-that’s a super interesting point! Great job!
September 23, 2019 at 2:56 PM
abbiehedden said…
I am definitely with you on Descartes vs. Locke! Descartes went in working from the ground up, whereas Locke kind of dove in. I also disagree with Locke, because I believe there are certain innate truths. Good post!
September 23, 2019 at 4:57 PM
Kayla Gill said…
To an extent, I understand what Locke is saying when he talks about learning from experience. While I do think he is on the right path, I believe that he begins to get off track by saying this is the only way to learn. Even Kant explains to us that knowledge is power and is reinforced by experience. But, knowledge is the mind's ability to balance this experience with intellectual thinking and comprehension of that experience. Great post! I do agree with you and think the Locke needed to learn that what he was doing was exactly how he said you could not learn.
September 23, 2019 at 5:14 PM
Christian said…
Personally, I feel like Locke took a much more rational approach to understand the world than Descarte did. I feel like all knowledge does originate from sensation, and in my opinion, this is very easy to prove. I mean, I can't name a single thing I've learned without some sensation triggering thoughts, referred to as reflection. You learn language through hearing and seeing, you learn what hurts through feeling, you learn what foods you like through taste. I can't think of a piece of knowledge that did not in some sense originate as a sensation. Its how our bodies and brain work. Reflection is simply an explanation of how we process, learn and use those sensations to replicate or avoid those that were pleasant or unpleasant. Which forms the different idea types discussed later, but I digress. I suppose I could have just said I disagree, got to side with Locke on this one.
September 23, 2019 at 6:06 PM
Post a Comment